Smeared

Old Testament Law. The Bible has a lot to say about it. It started with the Ten Commandments, given to show us that we were fallen, sinful creatures. When we looked into the law, it was as if we were looking into a mirror which reflected back our sinful lives. That was its first purpose … but then man added more and more "handwritten ordinances" that made it even more impossible to keep. That's why we needed a savior.

Even before the Ten Commandments were written on stone, man in the Garden of Eden was asked by his Creator to do one thing … just one … and he failed in that simple task. Mankind didn't start off very well did he? And it was all downhill from there.

The first Adam failed and by doing so plunged the human race into sin. But God so loved the world (John 3:16) that He sent a second Adam by the name of Jesus … made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7) and who was the exact express image of God (Hebrews 1:3) … He was God in the flesh. I think this explains why Jesus was able to live without breaking even one of the laws of God.

Jesus came to do something about the Law, in which natural men, because of the fallen sin nature within them, even trying the very best they could, still could not keep from sinning and breaking that Law.

Paul, in the following verses is saying, because of what Jesus did …

Romans 8:1-4 … "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus … for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, (ineffective against the sin nature) God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us …"

The Law of God was at odds our human nature and stood in opposition to what our flesh wanted to do. So how was God going to fix this problem that had existed for the past 4,000 or so years? His answer was Jesus.

When the first Adam sinned, God sacrificed a lamb … because as the writer of the Book of Hebrews states (my translation) … "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." (Hebrews 9:22)

So God sends Jesus … the second Adam … or as it says in the Book of John, "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." The second Adam did not sin as the first did, but instead became that sacrificial Lamb.

Hebrews 12:24 states that Jesus is the mediator of … "the new covenant" and of "the sprinkling of the blood."

Hebrews 13:12 continues speaking of why Jesus sprinkled His blood on the mercy seat in Heaven … "that He might sanctify the people with His own blood …"

Paul also confirms this in Ephesians 1:7 with the words … "In whom we have redemption through His blood ..."

This sinless Lamb of God, by hanging on the cross and shedding His own blood did something to the Law of God that fixed the problem man had with the Law. What did Jesus do?

Ephesians 2:15 … "Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances …" (rules that our flesh rebelled against), and by doing so Jesus became the mediator between God and man.

The word "abolished" in the Greek is "katargeo" and means … to be rendered entirely idle and useless … and by implication means (do away with, make of no effect, make void.) The word "enmity" in the Greek is "echthra" and means … hostility or opposition.

If I understand all this correctly, Paul is saying that Jesus "abolished" the law of "commandments" that was in "opposition" to our flesh and made them void.

So how did He do this? What did He do? Allow me to paint a picture for you that only happened spiritually (not materially) while Jesus hung on the cross. I like to think that God, seated on His throne had the Book of the Law in His hands when …

Jesus took the Law from Him and nailed it to His cross. This next verse may be one of the most important verses in the Word of God. Look at it very closely …

Colossians 2:14 … (Jesus) "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross …"

The two words "Blotting out" are "exaleipho" in the Greek; and that one word means … to smear out.

When Jesus nailed the Law to the cross, His blood ran down the cross and smeared the handwriting of ordinances that was against us on the pages of the Law, so we could not be judged by them any longer. They are … "rendered entirely idle and useless."

So today when God looks at the pages of the Law, it's all blotted out; all He sees is … a big bloody smear … and that smear is the blood of His Son Jesus.

Wow … I never saw that before.


Comments welcome.

The Storms of Life

I'm not sure why but I find myself coming back to this same story. I guess I'm drawn to the example it has about life and the different types of storms God takes us through on our journey.

I remember waking up one morning, just a little kid living with my mom and dad and two brothers, one older and one younger. I didn't ask to be here … I just was. I had no choice in the matter. I don't know how old I was, maybe around four years of age. It really doesn't matter … God gave me my life, placed me in this family and now I was going to have to deal with it.

I also remember crying the night dad came into my bedroom and told me that my mom would not be coming back home. She had been sick. That night a little four year old boy learned a life lesson … death hurts … and it leaves a huge hole in the middle of your heart. I've also learned since that only Jesus can fill it.

Many others have also experienced this same hurt … the death of a child, a husband or wife. Perhaps it was a close friend like Jesus lost.

Through the years I've tried to understand why Jesus wept and even groaned in His spirit just before He raised His friend Lazarus from the dead. I think I know and understand now. He hurt just like that little four year old boy did when his mom died. Jesus felt what I felt … death hurts.

Death seems so final on this side of the grave.

No one died the evening Jesus sent His disciples to sea knowing He was sending them … out into the storm … for another life lesson. A brief miracle of sorts was going to take place on this dark and stormy night. And as far as I know, it never happened again.

Peter walked on water.

You remember the story in Matthew 14:22-33 … Peter sees Jesus walking past them on the water, right in the middle of the storm, where He sent them, and Peter asks Jesus if he can do the same thing.

Is there a life lesson here? Yes there is … one most people don't want to hear about.

It's that God also arranges for us to encounter the storms of life just as His disciples did. And when we are out on that stormy sea, if we start to sink and cry out to Jesus as Peter did … Lord save us … you may hear the very same thing Peter heard. "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"

The word doubt used here is "distazo" and it means … to duplicate or think twice, to waver mentally.

Peter was walking on the water just fine until he started looking around. "But when he saw the wind …"

How did Peter see the wind? He didn't. The word saw is "blep'o" and means "to become aware" … in this case, aware of the waves the wind was making; which by the way had nothing to do with being able to walk on water. They were not giving him buoyancy; they were not holding him up. They were in fact a distraction that caused him to take his eyes off Jesus … where the miracle power really came from. The power came from God, but the faith or lack of it was all Peter's … proven by the fact that Jesus didn't sink, Peter did.

What if the storm was but a test, (as it is many times with us) a life lesson to show Peter how much real faith he had. This was not just supposition. Peter had real faith or he couldn't have walked on water. It was Peter's trust in Jesus that allowed him to believe that if his Lord told him, "Come, step out of the boat and … do what I'm doing … walking on water," he believed he could. Peter believed Jesus would never tell him to do something he couldn't do, so without thinking twice, he just went for it by faith.

Stepping out of the boat was not what got him in trouble. It was simply this … after receiving the Word from the Lord, "Come, walk with me," and after acting on it, Peter had a "distazo" moment. He wavered mentally and thought twice about where he was and what he was doing … but only after he was walking on water.

So what if it was contrary to the laws of nature. Was he not doing what his Lord had given him permission to accomplish? Did you notice the words Jesus later used to describe Peter? "O you of little faith." It sounds like Jesus was also describing me.

The two words little faith is "oligopistos" meaning incredulous … something you are not naturally disposed to. This word oligopistos comes from the Greek word "oligos" meaning … puny or brief.

Let me run this through my mind again. Jesus tells Peter, "Come on" and he walks on water. Peter looks around, sees that he is doing … the impossible … and sinks. That pretty much covers it, proving he's just like us.

But I also see something a lot of believers don't. This life lesson is not about "great faith." It's about … "puny, brief faith." It's the kind I have most of the time. Isn't that what Jesus told Peter he had. And is it not true that he had enough of this puny, brief faith to walk on water? But I still can't; at least I never have yet.

If the Greek rendering of "little faith" is right, and I believe it is; it also says that we are not naturally disposed to even this puny faith. I'm not speaking of doubt and unbelief which is opposed to faith. The word doubt in the question Jesus asked Peter is really not the right translation of the word. Remember it's "distazo" meaning to think twice, to waver.

When you ask something of the Lord … I'm thinking of Mark 4:14-15 … "The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; (along the path of life) but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts."

When you ask something of the Lord … and He answers you with a word sown in your heart or the answer comes as seed from the Word of God, either way … Satan comes immediately to steal that word from you. The word heart used here is "kardia" which means … thoughts or feelings of the mind … in other words, where you might be tempted to think twice. It is not speaking of your inner spirit.

When you ask something of the Lord … the first answer, the first word you receive will be from the Lord. The second word or thought that makes you "think twice" will be Satan trying to take away the word from God that was sown in your heart and replace it with a lie or half truth. Again, it's in your thoughts, your mind.

So how does he do it? With a "distazo" moment … he causes you to "think twice" and you waver. Satan wants you to take your eyes off Jesus and see only the storm around you exactly as Peter did. If Satan can just get you to look around, "to become aware" of the distractions that usually come with the storm, then your faith will be brief … it may be true faith … but like Peter's, it won't last; you won't be able to continue to walk on water, so to speak.

If Satan can't stop you from stepping out of the boat, he will try to make your walking on water … brief. Use each of the storms of life to learn and grow in faith. They are from God you know. Most miracles happen in the midst of the storm.

The verse … "The joy of the Lord is my strength," really means …

"What gives the Lord joy … is my strength in the storm."


Comments welcome.

Healing … Part II

Continuing with the question … "Is healing really promised?"

May I start again with this declaration … "God heals" … that is never in doubt.


The following statement is from the commentary of … John Gill.

"Sin is a disease, a natural and hereditary one, an epidemic that reaches to all men, and to all the powers and faculties of their souls, and members of their bodies; and in itself mortal and incurable; nor can it be healed by any creature, or anything that a creature can do. Christ is the only physician, and His blood, the sovereign medicine that cleanses all the disease of sin. Through it is the remission of sin, which is meant by healing … for the healing of diseases, and forgiving iniquities … is one and the same thing.
Sin is a disease belonging to all men, a natural, hereditary and incurable one; but by the blood of Christ, forgiving sin … is a healing of this disease; and this is to be had in no other way, than through the stripes and wounds, the blood and sacrifice of the Son of God.
Christ is a wonderful physician; He heals by taking the sicknesses of His people upon Himself, by bearing their sins, and being wounded and bruised for them, and suffering death itself for them."


Matthew Henry wrote these words …

"Sin is not only a crime for which we were condemned to die, and which Christ purchased for us the pardon of, but it is a disease which tends directly to the death of our souls, and which Christ provided for the cure of. By His stripes, that is, the sufferings He underwent, He purchased for us the Spirit and grace of God, to mortify our corruptions, which are the distempers of our souls; and to put our souls in a good state of health, that they may be fit to serve God, and prepare to enjoy Him. And by the doctrine of Christ’s cross, and the powerful arguments it furnishes us with against sin, the dominion of sin is broken in us, and we are fortified against that which feeds the disease."


Psalm 103:2-3 … "Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases …"


John Gill continues with …

"The Lord is the physician of the bodies as well as of the souls of men, and sometimes heals the diseases of soul and body at once, as in the case of the paralytic man in the Gospel. (Mark 2:1-12.)
Spiritual disease is a natural, hereditary and mortal disease. There are many of them in men, which God only can cure; and He heals them by His Word, by means of His Gospel, preaching peace, pardon, and righteousness by Christ; by the blood, wounds, and stripes of His Son; by the application of pardoning grace and mercy; for healing diseases, and forgiving iniquities, are one and the same thing. This the Lord does freely, fully, and infallibly, and for which thanks are due unto Him; and it would be very ungrateful should they not be returned to Him."


Exodus 15:26 … "If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His sight, and wilt give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee."

God heals. Again, that has never been in question. I just question if what we "think" are promises, aren't really something else. That would explain why it is so hard to receive our healing every time, if it is not promised every time, in every situation like salvation is. I'm beginning to wonder …

Can you show me in the Bible, when Jesus was on the Earth, walking as a man, where He refused to heal anyone who asked Him for healing? Can't do it can you? Jesus never turned anyone down.

So today, when we ask Him for healing … what's the problem? We still have to ask … "in faith" … just like they did; except they could see Him in person and look Him in the eye which might be part of the answer. It's a lot easier to believe when you are "looking at the answer" right in front of you. And Jesus is always the answer.

That's why I named this blog … "GOD'S ANSWER is always Jesus."

But concerning prayer for the sick … I still don't know where I'm at. At least I'm honest about that.

I would really like to believe that Isaiah 53:5 and 1st Peter 2:24 are promises for today; promises that you can stand on that work every time; I want to believe … but I'm sorry … I don't.

I'd like to believe James 5:14-15 is only about healing, but it also talks about the forgiving of sins which is more important than healing. I want to believe that every time you are anointed with oil … the Lord will raise you up, that you are healed … but it isn't so, is it?

I wonder when dealing with healing, if we shouldn't be like Isaiah when he said this … "I will wait for the Lord, Who is hiding His face … and I will look for and hope in Him."

Solomon said … "For all this I considered in my heart … that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God …"

This following verse is stated by Paul in Romans 9:15, as he is basically putting Exodus 33:19 into his own words. "God said to Moses …'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion'."

The sense of the passage is clearly this … that God would choose the objects of His favor, and bestow His mercies as He chooses.

No man deserves His favor; and He has a right to save or heal whom He pleases, and to do this on His own terms according to His sovereign will and pleasure.

"On whom I will have mercy." Maybe this phrase should read this way… "On whom I choose to have mercy."

Could there be a more positive declaration of this truth than the following four statements…

(1)That God does it as sovereign, without giving an account of the reason of His choice to any.
(2)That God does it without regard to any claim on the part of man as having a right to His mercy.
(3)That God will do it to any extent which He pleases, and in whatever time and manner that may be in accord with His own will.
(4)That no one has a right to complain.

Basically God is saying … I am a debtor to none of my creatures. I will give my healing in my own way and on my own terms.

Does God have a right to do whatever He wants? Psalm 24:1 … "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; the world and they who dwell in it."

Romans 9:20-24, "… who are you, a mere man, to criticize, contradict and answer back to God? Will what is formed say to Him that formed it, Why have you made me thus? Has the potter no right over the clay …"

God is going to do whatever He wants … who's going to stop Him anyway? Besides whatever God does is right, in that He cannot make a mistake and He is never too late with the answer to our prayers. It's just that sometimes God, knowing what is best for His purpose, gives us His answer to our prayers according to His time table … which is not always what we expected.

I'm still going to pray for healing when someone asks it of me; it's just that I am now going to ask God to give healing through His mercy and grace … and not because it is a promise … because it might not be … but I'll keep praying because He has a heart of love and compassion for us. Jesus proved that when He walked as a man in the dust of the earth here among us.

I have no doubt in the ability of Jesus to heal the sick. I have heard all of the arguments about healing. It's God's purpose and will each time that I'm not sure of.

Even Paul said … "In everything willed by God." (Colossians 4:12, Amp.)

Including … "healing" … for the sick?


Where noted … taken from the commentaries of John Gill and Matthew Henry.


Comments welcome.

Healing … Part I

I must make this declaration first of all as I begin to look at the question of healing.

"God heals" … that is never in doubt. But by looking only at what I see today as believers pray for healing … I do ask this honest question … "Is healing really promised?"

James 5:14-15 … "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."


The following is from the commentary of … Adam Clark.

"It was the custom of the Jews to apply oil as a means of healing, and that James refers to this custom, is not only evident from the case of the wounded man ministered to by the good Samaritan in Luke 10:34, but from the practice of the Jewish rabbins. Jewish history books record that a Rabbi Joshua in Capernaum, anointed sick Jews with oil and they were made whole. Jews, not Christians.
The Jews had therefore, recourse to this as a natural remedy; and we find that the disciples also used oil in this way to heal the sick in cases where natural means were ineffectual. Mark 6:13 …'And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.'
On this latter I suppose that it might have been done symbolically, in order to prepare the way for a miraculous cure; but I am led to doubt its propriety, (its proper use) yet I dare not decide.
In short, anointing the sick with oil, in order for their recovery, was a constant practice among the Jews. And here I am satisfied that it has no other meaning than as a natural means of restoring health; and that James desires them to use natural means while looking to God for an especial miraculous blessing. And no wise man would direct otherwise."


So today, should I conclude then, that anointing the sick with oil is the will and command of the Lord for healing, or just James, a Jew himself participating in this old Jewish custom? Do I dare decide?


The following is from the commentary of … Albert Barnes.

"'The prayer of faith shall shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up' … This must be understood, as such promises are everywhere, with this restriction, that they will be restored to health if … it shall be the will of God; if He shall deem it for the best. It can not be taken in the absolute and unconditional sense, for then, if these means were used, the sick person would always recover, no matter how often he might be sick, and he need never die. The design is to encourage them to the use of these means with a strong hope that it would be effectual.
It may be added, that no one can demonstrate that this promise has not been in numerous instances fulfilled.
There are instances, and not just a few, where recovery from sickness seems to be in direct answer to prayer, and no one can prove that it is not so."


Let's look at one example the Apostle Peter gave about healing … in this case it's about slaves, beaten or punished unjustly as Jesus was.

1st Peter 2:18-24 … "Servants, (slaves)being subject to your masters, if you endure grief, when ye do well, and suffer wrongfully for it, ye take it patiently, for this is acceptable with God … because Christ also suffered wrongfully for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps. He also did no sin to suffer for, but committed himself to God and bore our sins in his own body on the tree … by whose stripes ye were healed." (My edited translation.)

Some think the apostle Peter alludes to the stripes which servants received from their masters, to whom he was now speaking; and in order to encourage them to bear them patiently, observes that Christ Himself also suffered stripes, and that they had healing for their wounds, through Jesus being beaten and bruised receiving stripes for them.

Can we claim or teach that any believer, of any age, with any sickness, in any circumstance, can obligate God to give healing because of this scripture in Peter? Is it a "whosoever may ask" type of promise … or is it a promise at all?

"By whose stripes ye were healed" … Peter has taken this phrase he uses from Isaiah 53:5 (below.) Peter was an eye witness to the scourging that Jesus received and therefore affirms Isaiah's scripture as true and accurate.

The idea seems to be that the Saviour was scourged or whipped; and that the effect on us is the same, producing a spiritual healing … recovering us from our sins, our faults; as if we had been scourged ourselves.

And with his stripes … The word used here in Hebrew means stripe, bruise, the mark or print of blows on the skin. The proper idea is the wound or stripe made from being beaten, or scourged.

Ye were healed … Sin is often spoken of as a disease; and redemption from it as a restoration from a deadly malady.

By faith, when we see the stripes inflicted on Him made by the beating He received; we should remember that they were on account of our sins, not His; and the effect in reclaiming us is the same as if they had been inflicted on us.

Isaiah 53:5 … "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed."

The Hebrew word Isaiah used for healed is "rapha" which means … to mend, to cure, to heal and make whole. (Mainly used of physical things … like our flesh.)


The following is a slightly different point of view on Isaiah 53:5 from the commentary of … Albert Barnes.

"How literally this was applicable to the Lord Jesus, it is unnecessary to attempt to prove. It may be remarked here, that this could not be mere conjecture; for how could Isaiah, seven hundred years before it occurred, know that the Messiah would be scourged and bruised? It is this particularity of prediction, compared with the literal fulfillment, which furnishes the fullest demonstration that the prophet was inspired. In the prediction nothing is vague and general. All is particular and minute, as if he saw what was done, and the description is as minutely accurate as if he was describing what was actually occurring before his eyes.
He was bruised for our iniquities … we are healed … literally, it is healing to us; or healing has happened to us. The healing here referred to, is spiritual healing, or healing from sin. Iniquities are sin. The forgiveness of sin, and the restoration to God, is frequently represented as an act of healing.
The figure is derived from the fact that awakened and convicted sinners are often represented as crushed, broken, bruised by the weight of their transgressions, and the removal of the load of sin is represented as an act of healing.
The idea here is the Messiah would be scourged; and that it would be by that scourging that health would be imparted to our souls. It would be in our place, and in our stead; and it would be designed to have the same effect in recovering us, as though it had been inflicted on ourselves.
And will it not do it? Is it not a fact that it has such an effect? Is not a man as likely to be changed from a lifestyle of sin, who sees another suffer in his place what he ought himself to suffer, as though he was punished himself?
Would not a wayward son likely to be recovered from a course of sin by seeing the sufferings of his father, mother, or sister, if they were unjustly subjected to a severe punishment for his sins?
It is on this principle that the plan of salvation is founded. We shall be more certainly reclaimed by the voluntary sufferings of the innocent in our behalf, than we should be by being personally punished. Punishment would make no atonement, and would bring back no sinner to God."


In some countries of the world still today, people are beaten and flogged for their acts of crime. In fact we did the same thing here in America early in our history; were not people tied to posts and scourged in public shame, or put in stocks in an effort to correct their conduct? It didn't work. But had we taken a man's wife or one of his children and flogged them for his crime … he most likely would have made a vow to himself never to be a lawbreaker again; but we can't do that.

To Be Continued …

Where noted … from the commentaries of Adam Clark & Albert Barnes.

An Inner Vow

Matthew 9:20-21 … "And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, (Jesus) and touched the hem of His garment: For she said within herself, If I may but touch His garment, I shall be whole."

This is an example of "an inner vow" … faith that flies in the face of the normal outward confession using words. This woman did not confess her great faith with her mouth; as far as is recorded, she didn't say anything out loud. "She said within herself" … within her heart, within her soul, right where faith battles rage.

Some have said that she had a reason for not crying out to Jesus in public. Her issue of blood made her ceremonially unclean by Jewish law, (Leviticus 15:25) and kept her from going to the house of God for prayer as we can; but it did not stop her from approaching the Lord Himself.

Notice she said within herself … "If I may but touch His garment, I shall be whole." She knew by law she would not be allowed to touch His person. So, trying her best to obey as much of the law as she could, it would have to be enough then to just touch the hem, the lower border or "fringe" of His garment.

So this woman, with a condition that made her actions in effect … a sin; out of modesty, afraid and unwilling to make a personal plea to Jesus in public knowing she would bring attention to herself, came up behind him, fearing if her physical problem was made known, she would be sent away by the people before reaching Jesus.

She could not take such a risk. She took what looked like her last opportunity of contacting Jesus … in a crowd. The more people that were present, the more likely she was that she would be concealed and unnoticed. Her faith was strong; there was no doubt in her heart for she had made that "inner vow" … that by just touching the hem of His garment she would obtain from Jesus the healing she so desperately needed.

But why did she think such a thing? Touching His clothes? Where did this thought come from? Or does it matter? She believed it … she had heard the stories of the healing power of Jesus.

One could say that she was planning to sneak up on Jesus and steal her healing from Him thinking He would not know it and would never miss it. After all … as the Son of God, did He not have the power of God with Him, around Him and in Him? He gave healing to others all the time anyway. He will never know.

But she was wrong in her thinking. She must have reasoned in her mind that this healing power that Jesus had just flowed forth out of Him like an emanation … such as how a flower emits a beautiful pleasant fragrance.

But healing did not always proceed from Christ like the odor of a flower, otherwise all who touched Him would have been automatically healed without faith … and that is not to be. Of all the many people in the crowd that were touching Him, only this one woman received healing. Why is that? She came in faith.

In Mark 5:25-34 we get a little more of this story …

"When the woman heard of Jesus, (that He was there, she) came in the press behind, (into the crowd from the rear) and touched His garment. For she said, (within herself) If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. And Jesus, immediately knowing in Himself that virtue (healing power) had gone out of Him, turned Him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?"

Yes, someone had touched Him … the whole crowd were pressed up against Him, many were touching Him. Most were carried along by the crowd, caught up in the moment, bumping into Him … all involuntarily … but only one touched Him with the conscious, voluntary, dependent touch of faith, reaching forth her hands expressly to make contact with the hem of His garment.

Mark goes on … "And He looked round about to see her that had done this thing. But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before Him, and told Him all the truth."

Luke 8:47 adds … "And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before Him, she declared unto Him before all the people for what cause she had touched Him, and how she was healed immediately."

Both Mark and Luke say that the woman, fearing and trembling, came and told Jesus all the truth in front of the people, including the impure nature of her disease. Perhaps she feared that Jesus would be offended that a person deemed unclean by the Law touched Him as she had.

"But Jesus said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole … "

Notice Jesus didn't say that He healed her. Yes; it was the power of Jesus that healed her; but that power would not have been exerted had it not been for her … faith … drawing it out.

Her confession of faith was within herself; she made an inner vow in her heart.

May I add one more observation? As I have already stated, her actions in public in her condition under the law would be considered a sin. So how could God honor and grant such a favor while in the commission of a sinful act?

I submit that she was no longer under the Law, nor was Jesus … for (a.) He fulfilled all the Law and introduced Grace; and (b.) according to Matthew 11:13, Jesus said … "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (the baptist) … meaning when John started preaching to repent and later proclaimed … "Behold the Lamb of God" … the dispensation of the Law came to an end.

This is why Jesus could legally perform healings and other acts on the Sabbath that would have previously been against the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law and thereby abolished the hand written ordinances that was against us … meaning the Law.

You may say that Jesus had not died yet. True.

But there was a transitional period involved here. Sometime during the three and a half years of the ministry of Jesus, the dispensation of Law transformed into the dispensation of Grace. Call it a gray area if you like. This allowed for all those who believed on Jesus, even before He died, to be counted as saved, born again, having their names in the Book of Life. Jesus speaking to His disciples said in Luke 10:20, "… rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." Even before He died.

So, for whatever reason, this woman was able to pull out of Jesus (with or without His knowledge) the healing she needed. I'm going to go with what Jesus said to her … "Thy faith hath made thee whole."

It was His power that healed her … but only because of that "inner vow of faith" she made within herself.


Comments welcome.

Giants and Fallen Angels … Part II

Genesis 19 … This chapter is the continuation of events in the preceding chapter.

The same two angels who had accompanied Jehovah to Abraham's tent are now sent to Sodom on the evening of the same day. "There came two angels to Sodom" … Lot seeing them (still in the physical form or likeness of natural men) invited them to stay the night in his house. They agreed; he gave them bread and … "they did eat."

The men of Sodom called unto Lot … "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (Have sex with them.)

But Lot refuses to let the Sodomites take the two men, (angels) and when they try to take them by force, the angels … "smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness." (Proof that they were angels sent from God to lead Lot and his family out of the city before He destroyed Sodom.)

These two accounts, as well as a third one in Genesis 32 … where God met Jacob at night and wrestled with him till the breaking of day. God was in the form of a man; not a created man, but as the "the Angel of the Lord," a visible physical manifestation of the invisible God. These scriptures and others have convinced me that both God and angels can assume physical bodies and operate like men in the natural realm.

I also contend that "in the past" it was possible for "fallen angels" to also manifest themselves physically as man for evil purposes. It falls under what I call … "spiritual laws" … if God's angels have the right to operate physically in the natural realm; then the fallen angels would also have the right and that same ability to do so.

This leads to the next question … "What are demons and where did they come from?"

The Bible only gives us "hints" to the answer of this question … nothing we can make doctrine out of. You may ask … "Then why is it important?" It may not be important to you, but demons are real and we need to understand their role in spiritual matters. I believe it was John Wesley who said … "The spiritual world is dark unto us, but we lie open to it."

I have heard some people say that Satan created demons. No … I don't think so. John 1:3 (speaking of Jesus states) … "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made."

So, if demons are real and Scripture agrees that they are; and if Jesus made all things, are we saying that God created demons? The answer must be … yes. But He did not create them as the evil demonic creatures they are now.

"Demons" are "disembodied spirits." What is that? Disembodied spirits are "fallen angels" who have had their angelic bodies taken away from them by God because they left the spiritual realm they were created in and crossed over into the natural physical realm of man when they produced the un-natural race of giants.

I have tried to show in this discourse that the fallen angels had the ability to operate in this physical world, not as men, but just like normal human men. I refer you back to Genesis 6:2 … "they took themselves wives from whomever they chose."

I believe the following two verses speak to this sinful act of the fallen angels that produced the giants that was on the earth.

Jude 1:6 … "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

2nd Peter 2:4 … "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment … "

The word hell in this verse is the Greek word … "Tartaros" … and is used only here. Its meaning in Greek is, "the deepest abyss of Hades." It is not the same place normally referred to as hell. The key to understanding what Jude and Peter spoke about are in the almost identical phrases they used … "chains under darkness" and "chains of darkness."

I have always tried to keep my personal opinion separate from the truth of the Word of God. My opinion is just that … it's my opinion. But I always base such opinion on what I believe I find in the Bible. The following is in theory one explanation of how and why demons came to be … but it's still just an opinion.

"When the fallen angels, (the sons of God) came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them (Gen. 6:4) they crossed the line with God. As both Jude and Peter stated, God "delivered them into chains of darkness" by taking away their angelic bodies, leaving them after that with the ability to operate only as a spirit being. The term now used for them is … a disembodied spirit.

The easiest way for me to explain why they are in darkness is simply because they no longer have a body, and no longer can reflect light. It's like they are in the darkness of outer space. The universe is dark except when solid objects, planets, moons, space shuttles, etc. reflect the light of the various suns. A spirit cannot reflect light because it is intangible; it lacks substance, being incapable of being touched or seen.

Being unable to operate and express themselves in this natural physical world as disembodied spirits, they need to gain control and take possession of some physical body made of flesh; preferably a human being, but even animals will do. Remember the man called Legion in Luke 8:33 … "Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine …"

Because these disembodied spirits are under Satan's control they are … demonic.

What reason would Satan have for his fallen angels to create a race of giants? To start with, I don't believe Satan knew they would be giants … he's not that smart.

The main reason for the fallen angels to leave their first estate, their own habitation (their spiritual realm) was to pollute the bloodline of the woman, (Eve) because of the declaration (really more of a promise) God made to Satan in Genesis 3:15 … "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

The seed of the woman … Jesus … was to come by the woman, and by her alone, without the man. Therefore the fulfillment of this promise is not dependent on both Adam and Eve and their seed; but to Eve alone in that Jesus would be born of a virgin.

This is what is implied to Satan in the promise of the seed of the woman (Jesus) bruising the head of the serpent.

Therefore Satan, after hearing God's promise of the seed of the women, tried to pollute the bloodline of the women so that there could not be a pure bloodline for Jesus to be born from. If this theory or supposition is correct … then Satan almost succeeded in his plan. Notice the following verses …

Genesis 6:8 … "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."

Why did Noah receive grace out of all the masses of people on the earth? What made him so special? The answer is in the next verse …

Genesis 6:9 … "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

Notice the phrase … "perfect in his generations." He didn't find grace because he was sinless or better looking than anyone else. It wasn't because of wealth or even his work ethic. It wasn't anything he did to earn it. It was because the history of his family bloodline could be traced back to Adam … making him pure in his generations.

The word perfect in Hebrew is "tamiym" and means … entire, without blemish, and undefiled. In other words, Noah was pure in his bloodline.

Again I say, this is only a theory, but it makes sense … it seems plausible. It has been suggested that Noah and all of his family going back to Adam and Eve were perhaps the only ones left that had not been polluted like a mongrel race by the fallen angels and the Nephilim … the giants. Satan came that close to stopping the pure bloodline in which Jesus could be born.

Is this theory true? Maybe. I don't have a clue except for these two or three hints given in the Scriptures. Does it matter? Probably not … except it shows to what extent Satan tried to go, to stop the only one who could bring his kingdom down.

And that one was … Jesus.


Comments welcome.

Giants and Fallen Angels … Part I

The first time I read about the controversial subject of giants on earth I just assumed they were like the fables in Greek mythology. But I was wrong. Through further study, including the Holy Scriptures, I found out there was much more to it than just a myth.

During the Summer Olympics that were held in Greece a few years ago, I remember seeing on ABC Sports some of the national antiquities preserved in museums; real physical objects made of iron and stone that Greece claimed were from the original ancient Olympic games dating back a couple thousand years or so.

Some of the items shown were claimed to have been used back then by the athletes … huge shot put balls so heavy that it would be impossible for the normal athletic man to throw; an iron javelin about 20 feet long with a 4 or 5 inch diameter shaft which would have been too heavy and too large for the average man's hand to grip. I also remember seeing what looked like a really big sledge hammer with a short handle that was supposed to be used in a throwing contest, but it weighed 50 or 60 pounds, hardly the normal hammer throwing instrument.

After careful study, I am of the opinion that these Olympic items could have only been used by the type of men the Bible calls in Genesis 6:4 … "mighty men of old, men of renown." I therefore conclude that Greek mythology could be based on stories of these giants or "Nephilim" in Hebrew as they are called in Numbers 13:33 that Israel had to contend with. Of course in Greek mythology, the stories were exaggerated to the point where they became gods like Zeus and Apollo.

One of the first stories children learn in the Bible is about David and Goliath found in 1st Samuel 17:4-51. Although the calculation used for the length of a cubit varies, most manuscripts show this giant to have been nine feet, nine inches tall. The shaft of his spear was compared to a weaver's beam; his spear was 21 feet long and weighed 37 pounds. His armor is estimated to have weighted just under 300 pounds.

The size of Goliath and the weight of his weapons of war as given in the Bible correspond exactly to the size and weight of the preserved Olympic antiquities in Greece. So, if I am to accept what is recorded in the Bible as accurate; shouldn't I also conclude that giants played in the ancient Olympic Games several thousand years ago?

The question now becomes … who were these giants?

To find the answer to this question, I decided to go to the original Word of God, the … "Torah" … the Jewish Bible. I wanted to compare what it said with two that I use; the K.J.V. and the Amplified Bible.

Genesis 6:1-2 in the Torah reads … "Man began to increase on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them. The sons of God saw that the daughters of man were good, and they took themselves wives from whomever they chose."

Notice the clear distinction given between "sons of God" and "the daughters of man." The meaning of the daughters of man is obvious. Even I can understand that. But who are the sons of God?

In the Mechon Mamre English Version of the "Torah" … there are footnotes explaining the meanings given for some of the original Hebrew words and phrases.

The phrase … sons of God … in verse 2 above had this reference: "These were the fallen angels" … (See note on Genesis 6:4 below.)

Continuing in the Torah … Genesis 6:4 … "The titans were on the earth in those days and also later. The sons of God had come to the daughters of man and had fathered them. The titans were the mightiest ones who ever existed, men of renown."

Note: the Torah's reference on verse 4 stated, "The word … titans … is Nefilim in Hebrew, meaning literally … fallen ones. They were called this because they were the sons of the fallen angels. See Numbers 13:33."

(Numbers 13:33 is the report from ten of the twelve spies relating to an order given by the Lord, to send one man from each of the twelve tribes into the land of Canaan, to search and spy it out.)

Numbers 13:33 from the Torah … "While we were there, we saw the titans. They were sons of the giant, who descended from the original titans. We felt like tiny grasshoppers! That's all that we were in their eyes."

Compare Numbers 13:33 in the Amplified … "There we saw the Nephilim [giants], the sons of Anak, who come from the giants; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."

Both … the Jewish Bible (Torah) and the Christian Bible (Amplified) plainly teach that there were a race of giants on earth that came from a union between the fallen angels and the daughters of men. The Nephilim (the giants) were not the fallen angels. They were the offspring, the children born from this union.

This is why even the King James Bible states in Genesis 6:4 … "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same (the children) became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

The children became the giants of Greek mythology, and "also after that" which I believe included the giant named Goliath that David killed.

And now the big question … but how is this possible?

May I try and explain using Scripture?

Many people say that it would be impossible for the fallen angels to mate with human women and produce children since they are in a different realm … meaning the spiritual realm vs. the natural realm. On the surface that looks right. But let's look a little deeper.

I want to look at three things in this two part study …

1.) The manifestation of God … physically.
2.) The manifestation of Angels … physically.
3.) What are demons and where did they come from?

I want to start in Genesis 17 … When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am the Almighty God … I will make my covenant with thee." Abram fell on his face and God talked with him, saying … "Behold, my covenant is with thee … neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham."

In chapter 17, it's recorded that the LORD … "appeared" … to Abraham. (The LORD being Jehovah, the self existent or eternal God.) In the original Hebrew, the word for appeared is … "raah" … which means to see literally; and is implied to behold, to gaze upon, to show self.

How much time Abraham had with God is unknown, the scripture is silent on that point; but it must have been long enough for Abraham to recognize Him again the next time the Lord came calling. Notice what he does in chapter 18.

Genesis 18 … "The LORD appeared unto him as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day … he lifted up his eyes and looked, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them and bowed himself toward the ground and said … My Lord … "

Abraham is sitting in the door of his tent when two angels and the LORD (Jehovah) appear before him. Whenever God as the (Angel of the Lord) or angels themselves appear in scripture they always appear in the form of man. I believe that when the Angel of the Lord appeared, it was always a manifestation of Jesus … because after Jesus is born of Mary, the Angel of the Lord never again appears in Scripture.

So … in both of these encounters, did Abraham really see God and the two angels manifested physically or was it only with his spiritual eyes in the form of a vision?

Let's read on … Abraham gives them water to wash and refresh themselves and then sets food before them … "and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat." The Bible makes one point real clear about these three visitors that looked like physical men with the words … "and they did eat."

How did they do that? Aren't angels supposed to be in a different realm than man? These angels washed like men, rested under the tree like men would have; they even ate the food given them like men. To the natural mind the physiological process of angels eating material food is incomprehensible.

Therefore the only plausible explanation of how this could happen is that angels can and do operate as men in this natural realm the same as we can. The following scripture seems to be in agreement with this …

Hebrews 13:2 … "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."

The Amplified says it this way … "Do not forget or neglect or refuse to extend hospitality to strangers … for through it some have entertained angels without knowing it."

In Part II … we will discuss more on this, including fallen angels.

To be continued …


Comments welcome.